2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasReally? Do you mean to tell me that ethical issues within science never occur? Also, do you mean to tell me that the creation of the world described in Genesis has nothing whatsoever to do with science whether you agree with the validity or not? No, the Bible is not a book of science, but there are science related issues within its texts and vice versa.
Science and religion never mix, therefore there are religious domains, and there are scientific domains, and never meet the two. So if you believe in creationism of religious reasons, I have no problem with that.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyEthics are not religious per se. There are ethics everywhere, in every religion and non-religion. Ethics used by science is common-human ethics. It has nothing to do with religion.
Really? Do you mean to tell me that ethical issues within science never occur? Also, do you mean to tell me that the creation of the world described in Genesis has nothing whatsoever to do with science whether you agree with the validity or not? No, the Bible is not a book of science, but there are science related issues within its texts and vice versa.
Prehistoric myths are just myths. These myths are not base upon science. If you treat genisis scientifically it will fail as being science.
A friend of mine think that astrology is science, because it involves a lot of calculations (!) But as long astrology is based upon phenomena not being science, it isn't science, it's a religion.
If religion is science, then (1) define god so everyone can agree with you, (2) prove the existance of god, and (3) make an experiment where gods existance is changing the result, not explainable in any other way. If you fail on (1), (2), and (3), then it's not science.
But of course, you can study religion scientifically, like they do in religion, history, mythology, etc... But religion per se cannot ever be science.
4 edits
Originally posted by whodey…Do you mean to tell me that ethical issues within science never occur?
Really? Do you mean to tell me that ethical issues within science never occur? Also, do you mean to tell me that the creation of the world described in Genesis has nothing whatsoever to do with science whether you agree with the validity or not? No, the Bible is not a book of science, but there are science related issues within its texts and vice versa.
…
Science has nothing to say about “ethics” for “ethics” is not something that can be scientifically/rationally investigated. This is because no observation/evidence/flawless-logic can verify or refute any “ethical” hypothesis.
All “ethical” beliefs are a result of either blind faith or flawed logic or a mixture of both.
Religion also cannot rationally say anything about “ethics” any more than any pure flawless science can (one of the very few things religion has in common with science 😛) although, of course, religion generally irrationally says a lot about “ethics” (i.e. without rational premise for the implicitly/explicitly stated “ethical“ hypothesises).
No “ethical issues” exist other than in people’s minds with (slightly?) flawed reasoning.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAndrew, you speak a lot about Rationality.
[b]…Do you mean to tell me that ethical issues within science never occur?
…
Science has nothing to say about “ethics” for “ethics” is not something that can be scientifically/rationally investigated. This is because no observation/evidence/flawless-logic can verify or refute any “ethical” hypothesis.
All “ethical” beliefs are a result of e ...[text shortened]... s).
No “ethical issues” exist other than in people’s minds with (slightly?) flawed reasoning.[/b]
Aren't there opposing philosophies all under the heading of Rationalism? Where do you stand?
What Rationalists do you prefer ? What Rationalists do you not side with in their way of thinking.
Descartes?
Spinoza?
Leibniz?
Christian Rationalists:
Hackett?
Clark?
4 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasOnce again, I never said religion was science and vice versa. I only said they cross paths once and a while. In fact pretty much all disciplines cross paths once in a while because no field of study is mutually exclusive to the great big world around us. For example, take Galileo. You might say that religion and science crossed paths here, no? Take the recent creation museum. Is science and religion not crossing paths here? Granted, these last two examples are of religion on the wrong side of science, but my examples are valid nonetheless. In addition, what about abortion? Is it not your position that science failed to properly condemned the practice based upon the science of it, thus it should superceed the religios belief that it is immoral? Here we see science competing with religion for the moral souls of people at large.
Ethics are not religious per se. There are ethics everywhere, in every religion and non-religion. Ethics used by science is common-human ethics. It has nothing to do with religion.
Prehistoric myths are just myths. These myths are not base upon science. If you treat genisis scientifically it will fail as being science.
A friend of mine think that as e they do in religion, history, mythology, etc... But religion per se cannot ever be science.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill…Andrew, you speak a lot about Rationality.
Andrew, you speak a lot about Rationality.
Aren't there opposing philosophies all under the heading of Rationalism? Where do you stand?
What Rationalists do you prefer ? What Rationalists do you not side with in their way of thinking.
Descartes?
Spinoza?
Leibniz?
Christian Rationalists:
Hackett?
Clark?
…
Yes.
…Aren't there opposing philosophies all under the heading of Rationalism?
..…
The word “Rationality” and “rational” doesn’t imply the philosophy of “Rationalism” nor being a “rationalists” as opposed to being a “empiricists”. They are totally different kinds of concepts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
…. Where do you stand?
…
I am an “empiricists” and not a “rationalists” and an unrelated fact to that fact is that I am all for thinking “rationally” 😛
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAre you an advocate of A.J. Ayer's ideas ?
[b]…Andrew, you speak a lot about Rationality.
…
Yes.
…Aren't there opposing philosophies all under the heading of Rationalism?
..…
The word “Rationality” and “rational” doesn’t imply the philosophy of “Rationalism” nor being a “rationalists” as opposed to being a “empiricists”. They are totally different kinds of concepts:
...[text shortened]... “rationalists” and an unrelated fact to that fact is that I am all for thinking “rationally” 😛[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelBack to the point.
So getting back to the point: life on other planets. Is that a question?
I feel I can authoritiavely answer that quesion, however I sense a lot of s*** may be slung my way if I say anything
I'm still thinking about the question, off and on.
I think the first place science is likely to find traces of the history of life is Mars. However, those evidences of life would have come from the planet earth.
The reason is that I think some microscopic forms of life find themselves floating in the upper atmosphere of the earth. Solar winds then blow them off of the planet and into outer space.
Conceivably some of those microscopic life forms would be driven through space on solar winds and possibly land on some nearby outer planet, like Mars.
So I would not be surprised if they find fossils or traces of earth like microscopic organisms on Mars. Of course some may think that it proves life evolved in the past on Mars.
It won't do much to our sense of cosmic loneliness though.
I ask myself "How curious are we ?" I mean by the fastest rocket we have today it would take over 100,000 years to reach the nearest star. I wonder just how curious man is willing to be to go somewhere to find this possible life.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI couldn’t remember his work so I looked at:
Are you an advocate of [b]A.J. Ayer's ideas ?[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language,_Truth_and_Logic
-one he said is that for a statement to be “meaningful”, it must be either analytic (i.e. a tautology) or capable of being verified. I personally think that is a rather extreme position because I see many statements (but not all such statements) as “meaningful” when they are neither analytic nor capable of being verified. For example: “there exists a ghost” -I may personally see that claim as very probably “false” but not “meaningless” even though it cannot be verified -well, at least that’s my way of thinking.
However, I do appear to find myself agreeing with most things he said including:
“…ethical or aesthetic judgments are subjective rather than objective, and cannot be demonstrated to be true or false….”
But I would go further in this case by saying that all “ethical beliefs” are meaningless because there is no “morally right” nor “morally wrong” but all “ethical beliefs” implicitly make the presumption that there is. But note that I don’t use his same strict criteria for defining what is “meaningful” but I noticed that I am not sure what criteria my brain is using in general but I think I may be giving a rather loose meaning to the words “meaningful” and “meaningless“ -I may have to think deeply about that.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThanks. I am reviewing myself.
I couldn’t remember his work so I looked at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language,_Truth_and_Logic
-one he said is that for a statement to be “meaningful”, it must be either analytic (i.e. a tautology) or capable of being verified. I personally think that is a rather extreme position because I see many statements (but not all such statements) ...[text shortened]... oose meaning to the words “meaningful” and “meaningless“ -I may have to think deeply about that.
It would be interesting to see you and Metacroc converse. Metacroc is a Christian apologist with in depth knowledge of philosophy.
He's very respectful and does debates over on CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.
I am not able to follow all of the ends and outs of his discussions with philosipher types. But they do have some lively exchanges.
Let us know if you ever go over to www.carm.org and get into a talk with him.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYou usually are wrong. This is no exception. The Bible clearly states that the heavens belong to God but the Earth was given to mankind. Understand? THE EARTH. I know you are the type that needs to read things over and over before it sinks in so:
At the present time I tend to think that the whole big universe was made by God mainly for human beings.
I could be wrong.
Psalm 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.
Furthermore Godfaring people are the ones that should be more likely to believe that there is intelligent life out there, than others like atheists and scientists. The opposite is actually the case becuase religion + arrogance = a closed mind. You are a good example of that.
If God created life on Earth He would certainly continue creating life forms all over the universe. The potter does not create one vessel and stop there.
Originally posted by whodeyYour example when religion and science meet... well, then we have to bend our definitions a bit.
Once again, I never said religion was science and vice versa. I only said they cross paths once and a while. In fact pretty much all disciplines cross paths once in a while because no field of study is mutually exclusive to the great big world around us. For example, take Galileo. You might say that religion and science crossed paths here, no? Take the r ...[text shortened]... is immoral? Here we see science competing with religion for the moral souls of people at large.
How do you define religion?
How do you define science?
Originally posted by FabianFnasI would say it is the study of the immaterial world and the material world. Of course, not everyone would agree.
Your example when religion and science meet... well, then we have to bend our definitions a bit.
How do you define religion?
How do you define science?